Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

    If a guy isn’t getting an opportunity until he is 21, isn’t it a good indication that he’s got some warts? Goaltenders might be a different animal, but I have to think there aren’t many players projected to be top 6 forwards and top 4 defense rotting away in juniors. I wouldn’t be surprised if newer programs being established and talent coming from states like a California and Arizona will create more urgency to take top players by the time they are 19 and the pool being deeper in regards to young, high end talent. Is this controversy widespread or just localized to Minnesota because Gopher fans are trying to rationalize their 2 titles over a 39 year period?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

      Originally posted by J.D. View Post
      Ha, any program can recruit normal aged college kids. And this is something I do care about. It's not the end of the world because my team was able to dominate for a long time often as youngest team in the country. But I still didn't like it then. Just using Minnesota State as an example, they didn't have a single player under 21 when they played Providence. I find that absurd.
      What do you find absurd about it? I won't keep pestering you; it's clear you either don't want to answer or think I'm trolling (which I'm not). If you choose to ignore the question a third time, I'll let it go, but I really am curious as to why you don't like it.
      Last edited by duper; 04-21-2019, 11:20 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by J.D. View Post
        Ha, any program can recruit normal aged college kids. And this is something I do care about. It's not the end of the world because my team was able to dominate for a long time often as youngest team in the country. But I still didn't like it then. Just using Minnesota State as an example, they didn't have a single player under 21 when they played Providence. I find that absurd.
        Absurd why? Is it demonstrably causing more injuries or something? You aren't giving a reason.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

          good rule changes. about time.
          GO NU HOCKEY
          Always bullish on the future.
          We don't always win Hockey East or the Beanpot (#trilogy).. but when we do.. we are the Champions

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

            How have I not answered the question? My opinion is easy to understand. I don't think you should have 24 year olds against 18 year olds in college hockey. Emphasis on college. You can disagree but don't be obtuse about it. If you really want it spelled out for you, a 21 year old freshman coming off multiple years in juniors is a lot more physically mature than an 18 year old freshman. As I said you can disagree but this isn't some new complaint that hasn't been brought up before.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by J.D. View Post
              How have I not answered the question? My opinion is easy to understand. I don't think you should have 24 year olds against 18 year olds in college hockey. Emphasis on college. You can disagree but don't be obtuse about it. If you really want it spelled out for you, a 21 year old freshman coming off multiple years in juniors is a lot more physically mature than an 18 year old freshman. As I said you can disagree but this isn't some new complaint that hasn't been brought up before.
              I'm still missing where you give an actual reason. People can go to college at any age.

              Yes this has been brought up before, and it's almost always Big Ten fans/administrators who want even more advantages for their programs.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                If you can't comprehend the reasoning I just gave, that's on you. Not gonna waste any more time on it. Happy Easter!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                  Is taking the high road in recruiting the reason why the Gophers have only 2 titles in the face mask, aluminum/composite stick, and plastic tuuk era? Is this what the controversy is really about now that they are taking guys from outside of the state? Motzko knows the game and will start taking some 19-20 year old guys.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by CanalPark View Post
                    Is taking the high road in recruiting the reason why the Gophers have only 2 titles in the face mask, aluminum/composite stick, and plastic tuuk era? Is this what the controversy is really about now that they are taking guys from outside of the state? Motzko knows the game and will start taking some 19-20 year old guys.
                    Who are you talking to? JD isn't a Gopher fan.
                    the state of hockey is good

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by state of hockey View Post
                      Who are you talking to? JD isn't a Gopher fan.
                      My bad. He just sounded like one.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                        Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                        How have I not answered the question? My opinion is easy to understand. I don't think you should have 24 year olds against 18 year olds in college hockey. Emphasis on college. You can disagree but don't be obtuse about it. If you really want it spelled out for you, a 21 year old freshman coming off multiple years in juniors is a lot more physically mature than an 18 year old freshman. As I said you can disagree but this isn't some new complaint that hasn't been brought up before.
                        I'm really not being obtuse. It was not clear to me what your concern was, and evidently I wasn't the only one. It is in fact clear now that you've answered my question.

                        I will admit that it seems to me like much ado about nothing. There is inherently going to be a minimum 5 year age gap between the oldest and youngest players on the ice, so I'm having trouble seeing why 7 years is so much worse. Not to mention, if those 24-yr-olds are so much bigger and stronger than the 22-yr-olds who entered as 18-yr-old freshmen, presumably they are getting signed professionally. If they're not, I feel like their age must not have been too much of an advantage.

                        But like I said, I'm not trying to pester you, so I'm more than happy to let it drop. Thank you for finally answering my question, though.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by duper View Post
                          I'm really not being obtuse. It was not clear to me what your concern was, and evidently I wasn't the only one. It is in fact clear now that you've answered my question.

                          I will admit that it seems to me like much ado about nothing. There is inherently going to be a minimum 5 year age gap between the oldest and youngest players on the ice, so I'm having trouble seeing why 7 years is so much worse. Not to mention, if those 24-yr-olds are so much bigger and stronger than the 22-yr-olds who entered as 18-yr-old freshmen, presumably they are getting signed professionally. If they're not, I feel like their age must not have been too much of an advantage.

                          But like I said, I'm not trying to pester you, so I'm more than happy to let it drop. Thank you for finally answering my question, though.
                          That's what I'm saying-- that's not a real reason.

                          My suspicion is that whoever his team is has done some losing to teams with older players recently.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by duper View Post
                            I'm really not being obtuse. It was not clear to me what your concern was, and evidently I wasn't the only one. It is in fact clear now that you've answered my question.

                            I will admit that it seems to me like much ado about nothing.
                            Which I certainly understand. This isn't some new argument. I thought everyone already understood the argument against older players. And as I have already explained my team has often had great success as the youngest team in the country or one of the youngest. And I still didn't like it. It's not a new argument.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                              Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                              How have I not answered the question? My opinion is easy to understand. I don't think you should have 24 year olds against 18 year olds in college hockey. Emphasis on college. You can disagree but don't be obtuse about it. If you really want it spelled out for you, a 21 year old freshman coming off multiple years in juniors is a lot more physically mature than an 18 year old freshman. As I said you can disagree but this isn't some new complaint that hasn't been brought up before.
                              I think that you have made the point? This is exactly why coaches recruit 21 year old freshman. If the coaches in other sports like football and basketball had the luxury of leaving players in a "junior" league to develop for a couple of years, they would do it to. Because they want to win. Many kids develop later than others and the time in junior gives them more development time. If you truly want college hockey to be at a higher level than junior hockey, why wouldn't you want to recruit from the cream of the Juniors. A few (and I mean a very small few) who are truly committed in high school, are still asked to play a few years of Junior to develop further. Dmen and goalies almost always require more development time, even all the way to pro. The luxury that hockey coaches have is likely the envy of many football and basketball coaches. The quality of the hockey that we see in Div 1 and Div III is directly a result of the availability of Junior hockey. I for one prefer to watch NCAA hockey that has the benefit of players developed for 1-3 years in Junior. This has allowed NCAA players to see increased success in the pros.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: NCAA Rule Changes to Slow Recruiting

                                Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                                Which I certainly understand. This isn't some new argument. I thought everyone already understood the argument against older players. And as I have already explained my team has often had great success as the youngest team in the country or one of the youngest. And I still didn't like it. It's not a new argument.
                                I'm a DU fan, so I'm definitely aware that this isn't a new argument. I've just never heard anyone say anything other than that it's wrong. Never heard a reason before, presumably because to the people who feel this way the reason seems so obvious that it doesn't bear mentioning? I was actually happy to see someone bring it up fresh, because I have always wondered what the problem is.
                                Last edited by duper; 04-21-2019, 05:04 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X